Harriet Miers

[billroper]

Harriet Miers decided to ask President Bush to withdraw her nomination to the Supreme Court and he's done so. This is probably a good thing, although actually having hearings would have been a better thing. I tend to be of the opinion that you should have your facts correctly arranged before the hanging occurs.

All that said, I would have greatly preferred that President Bush nominate someone who was more like John Roberts than someone who appeared to have a limited set of qualifications for the office and who was a close associate of the President. But I tend to believe in a merit-based system myself.

It does, at least to some extent, demonstrate that Bush was foolish to take the advice of the Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid, when he recommended that Bush nominate her. It was remarkable how quickly after the nomination was announced that Reid's office felt compelled to put out a statement indicating that the fact that he'd recommended her didn't mean that he actually supported Miers' nomination.

Well, of course not. Who would have expected that?

Comments

[markbernstein.livejournal.com]

This is what Harry Reid said when Miers was nominated:

"I like Harriet Miers. As White House Counsel, she has worked with me in a courteous and professional manner. I am also impressed with the fact that she was a trailblazer for women as managing partner of a major Dallas law firm and as the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association.

"In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer. The current justices have all been chosen from the lower federal courts. A nominee with relevant non-judicial experience would bring a different and useful perspective to the Court.

"I look forward to the Judiciary Committee process which will help the American people learn more about Harriet Miers, and help the Senate determine whether she deserves a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court."

This is what he said today when the nomination was withdrawn:

"The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed the Harriet Miers nomination. Apparently, Ms. Miers did not satisfy those who want to pack the Supreme Court with rigid ideologues.

"I had recommended that the President consider nominating Ms. Miers because I was impressed with her record of achievement as the managing partner of a major Texas law firm and the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association. In those roles she was a strong supporter of law firm diversity policies and a leader in promoting legal services for the poor. But these credentials are not good enough for the right wing: they want a nominee with a proven record of supporting their skewed goals.

"In choosing a replacement for Ms. Miers, President Bush should not reward the bad behavior of his right wing base. He should reject the demands of a few extremists and choose a justice who will protect the constitutional rights of all Americans."

I got the second quote directly from Senator Reid's web site. Which statement were you referring to?

[catalana.livejournal.com]

Do we know who Bush is likely to nominate in her place?

[billroper]

I'm hunting for the statement from Reid's office that I recall having heard, but it's proving elusive. In the meantime, I have a quote from this article:

``I have to say without any qualification that I am very happy that we have someone like her,'' Reid told reporters as Miers stood next to him. Reid stopped short of saying he would support Miers's nomination.

Ah, here we go:

Perkins was referring to Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who greeted Miers' nomination kindly Monday, saying he was pleased that Bush had tapped someone outside the community of sitting judges. Yesterday, Reid continued to praise Miers but emphasized that while he had suggested her to the president as a worthy replacement for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, that does not mean he would vote for her.

"I am grateful that the president took account of my views. But let me make clear that I have not endorsed this nomination," Reid said. "It would be entirely premature of me to do so."

So he recommended her, but wasn't endorsing her, nor would he necessarily vote for her. *whee*

[billroper]

Not yet. It is less likely, but not impossible, that he will nominate another woman. The problem is that the most likely women that he might nominate would be likely to provoke a firestorm from the left.

[markbernstein.livejournal.com]

While most of the media links Google turned up had variants of "sources have said that Reid recommended Miers", The Las Vegas Sun, in Reid's home state, had a slightly different take:

'At a White House breakfast meeting Sept. 21, Reid told Bush that Miers and an undisclosed number of others -- a "handful," one aide said -- could be acceptable to Democrats.'

. . .

'When asked why he had "gone to bat" for a Republican nominee, Reid said, "I don't know if this is going to bat." And Reid said that a reporter's characterization of Reid having "recommended" Miers as "maybe exaggerating a little."'

I'd say one of a "handful" that "could be acceptable" is a little different from "I recommend her."

[billroper]

I'd say that, if I were Bush, I wouldn't trust anything that Reid had to say on the subject of possibly acceptable or recommended candidates for judges.

Of course, I wasn't in the White House meeting, so I can't tell you exactly what he might have actually said at the time. But if -- to pick a similar case -- the same thing had happened when Hatch mentioned Ginsburg to Clinton as likely being confirmable, there would have been a lot of Democrats having a cow.

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

That's because just about anything Bush does will provoke a firestorm from the left.

And he'll deserve every bit of it ;)